[i can agree with most of your answers expect maybe with the evidence argument.
that's because I told you no "evidence".
now, I'll try to explain something...
what do you understand of "evidence", which you request? Because, God is not a mathematical formula that can be proven (by some mathematical calculations). God is not a physical force that you can have an evidence that it exists (by some physical tests) and you can measure (with some instruments). So what kind of evidence do you need? at a certain point, if one desires a "scientfical evidence" to this, it sounds like attempting to study literature by mathematics, or attempting to study a political debate in chemistry, or a philosophy using physics. So, maybe you can tell me what kind of evidence you expect (so I’ll see if there is one like that).
Now, consider psychology and phylosophy. You have teachings there, but what is the evidence that they are true? if there are some things in psychology that can be tested (i.e. put people in a situation and see if they act that way), others are not. Also consider that the explanation of "why things happen that way" is mostly human reasoning, even when there were tests on people. There may be other causes but poor understanding leads to false conclusions. There may be many things that, altogether are the cause, but only some of them were found and others mistaken. So what is the evidence that something is true in psychology and phylosophy? We both call sciences, but, what is the evidence that what they say is true? (isn’t it like seeking to prove psychology with maths?)
I don't think that studying rocks or atoms or biology, mathematics, etc. can lead to a "scientifical law" or the existence of a certain object that is undoubtedly the "evidence" that God exists (if you think otherwise, tell me exactly what you expect to find, because I can't imagine anything like it), or that there are some scientific methods to find some kind of energy to be "God". However, I don't think that that “God” can prove to be a conscious creator of the universe, so the only clear evidence that God exists would be, as I stated in the previous post, if God would make himself manifested (visible) and bring with Him angels and punish everybody that "sins" as soon as they do that, so that they would not doubt that He is real (that would be evidence enough that He exists and He is real, maybe nothing less would be enough and more would be useless). So, if you know something else I didn't think about that could be a "scienfical evidence", tell me what you expect and could be "clear evidence". However, I think the thing that leads to believing in God is rather reasoning, than evidence (although some people may convert to Catholicism, for instance, because of something they saw and they call “appearance of Virgin Mary” – I say so because I don’t think she appeared anywhere). If you want to hear something that is “evidence”, just to be something, there are a lot like that, you may just choose which you wish to believe. But you may not believe them, and even Bible prophecies, no matter how clear they would be that has happened as it was written before, that will not be enough because there will always be questions of the kind “what if…?”. You can seek “bible prophecies” on the internet, read the bible, study, etc. but I don’t think it will ever be enough, and some may even be wrong interpretations, only to get to another fulfilled prophecy, so take care if you do that.
If you found that kind of evidence which you seek, let’s say you do. But one day the thought will come and say “but what if there is another explanation for that?”, and that which may be clear and good evidence, will not be an evidence for you anymore, and you will always search for something else, some other “evidences” because doubt can exist everywhere. And this is our freedom of belief: if there was something which, as much as we tried, could not doubt, then it would be something forced upon us to believe, which would mean that God wants or needs robots/zombies, which I can’t imagine why He would either need or want so.
Now I will to explain what it means not to exist God... I think I will get into the theory of evolution as well... .
The theory is something like this, if I remember right: in the beginning there was a big-bang that happened for no reason (or there is a "law" in the universe that tells that should happen with no reason). Fortunately, there were already way too many laws in the universe that were even that good as they made possible the formation of molecules from atoms, then planets, stars, etc. and to be grouped/structured into solar systems, galaxies, etc. Although I cannot believe "matter" is born out of no "matter" (but instead, that is born of energy, pressure, temperature, whatever), and even though I will be that kind of unbeliever that says "I don't believe unless I see with my own eyes", and thus I first expect to see such kind of experiment in a laboratory, or maybe just one broadcasted to the TV, I will ingore this for now. We now have a universe that has formed, and as it is possible, maybe this planet is the only planet which can support life (with all the things it needs) among very numerous other planets.
The “life” dillema.
Although we cannot understand what "life" is, I mean, what it makes a living cell to be a "living" thing, we say that "life" evolved from "non-life". Although I cannot imagine how a rock can evolve, or water, or a piece of "earth", let's say it's just the coincidence that some molecules somehow got into correct place so that would make a complet, complex cell (that would function properly and even give it the capability to multiply – great odds, right? Consider also what must have happened for a cell to get all the ‘ingredients’ in the right positions and in proper quantity), yet maybe it lacked the “life” component of it (that which is the difference between a living cell and a dead cell). Now, we don't know what made it alive/function (have its components move and start the chemical reactions), and I think we have never experienced the resurrection of a cell (because even for us is too hard to make a cell from atoms/molecules, so we need to step to the point when the cell already exists), or even, what can we say about the "birth" of another living cell from "non-living" matter? We learnt at school that only one cell became alive so far, and so we are all descendents of only one cell, although maybe nothing would have stopped the formation of another living cell, and thus beings did not evolve from only one being. Ok, we ignore this again, we just have one living cell that is “the miracle of life”. Still, what do we expect this “life” to be? What do we expect to have made its components move and start chemical reactions (and even continue doing that)? Is it a law of physics that started all? Is it another chemical component? But if life is just some chemical reactions and the moving due to physical laws, I think it is not wrong to say that the Sun is a living being too: it also moves and it experiences chemical reactions, and all is caused by something far in the past. Is there a difference? By this understanding, I think everything in the universe is “alive”, so there is no “miracle of life”. Moreover, we should be just like any other object in the nature (which is only subject to the laws of the universe), and our deeds, words and thoughts should be preordained by some chemical laws, which would mean we cannot have our own decisions, which would make us some kind of robots, which we aren’t. Am I missing something?
Ok, we ignore that as well, and try to study the process of evolution. First off, we understand “evolution” of species as follows: when a new creature is born, it is not 100% the same as previous (why?), yet there are some limits of the differences they have from their ancestors (for instance, human beings have a limit of height – i.e. don’t grow 50 meters in height -, have 2 eyes, properly placed, the mouth doesn’t grow exaggeratly big, and the nose does not cover all the face, etc.). However, there are some exceptions to these “laws” of the nature, which we call “mutations”. We know that too many of these mutations are “bad”, which mostly makes that creature not survive too long. Very, very rarerly are there those mutations that do neither evil nor good (like a normal tiger giving birth to a white tiger – if I know well, the white tiger is said to have been a “mutation” of a normal tiger). And extremly rare, it is the possibility that the mutation to be benefical (do we have a discovered example of this kind?). However, the theory of evolution of species goes like this: When a new creature is born there is a very, very, very small probablity that it would suffer a benefical mutation. The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive, and those with less, would dissappear.
What I do not understand as a proper “theory of evolution” of atheism: Others understand “nature” as a kind of spiritual entity (should we call it Gaia?) that has aims, objectives, intentions, wishes, etc. and does not stop until it succeeds what has ‘planned’, and has a predefined understanding of what is “superior”. This way, the direction of evolution is, for instance, from creatures with 4 legs to creatures with 2 legs, from a lizard form to a human form. I heard once the idea that if the dinosaurs had survived, until now they would have had 2 legs, would have had a human form, but a reptile skin and some kind of reptile head. I think people believe that because they consider themselves superior and special (the sense, desire to be superior and special – even that they are happy with the idea that they are smarter than monkeys), and so they put themselves on top of evolution and thus measure the evolution line into “human” direction. I have also heard in a video that was talking about sexual life and said that it is not healthy to have excesive sex, but it should be more moderate, this “healthy way” being explained as “this is what the nature INTENDED for us.”, which is absurd. I have also heard the idea that the nature foresees when a great danger will take place and would evolve creatures so that they would survive when it happens. This explained the “quick” evolution from ape to man – and this idea was even used in a SF movie, I forgot its name. By this idea I understand that if I have a room where I raise rats, but every year I catch one of them and burn it in fire, the “nature” will seek to make the rest of the rats more resistant to fire, or maybe give them wings so that I would not be able to catch them anymore. I don’t know why I don’t expect that to happen… maybe because there are many species that have disapeared, and many times because their environment got destroyed, without the mother nature to interfere and help them adapt. About this “theory of evolution” I just explained: I don’t think this is a good theory of evolution (but rather much fantasy), in which there is no atheism, but there is one god: Gaia (although not fully developped). By this theory, the “nature” keeps in mind what it was trying to do, so it takes some million years until an eye is fully developped, because everything is done “step-by-step” (an attempt of an eye, a better attempt, …, an eye with great problems, an eye with some problems, an eye with no problem), as the “nature” keeps in mind what mutation it tries to perform and simply “builds atop” every generation.
Ok, we will take the first kind of “evolution”, and we will take an example, a creature, to follow its “evolution” to see how good the theory is.
Let’s take an imaginary species of lizard, that we chose to be brown coloured, and lives in grass or some other kind of vegetation. In order to survive aeons, it would need to evolve: here, it would need a camouflage, that is, the colour of its skin to be very similar to the shade of green of the vegetation it lives in (that is, if the lizard’s skin would become dark green and the vegetation is light green, there is no camouflage). As I do not know the procent of probability that this “benefical” mutation would happen, I will try to imagine something. Let’s imagine that of this specific species, there are 5 milions exemplars, and that hypothetically, this exact mutation would happen in 24 milion years (I hope it’s not an exaggerated number), and that through the ages, this number of exemplars would neither shorten, nor grow, and that every year, a new generation of this kind of lizards is hatched. So in 24 milion years, there would be 24 milion generations. Considering that there will always be 5 milion exemplars (this, to simplify calculation), it would mean that there were 24 milion * 5 milion lizards during this period of time. So 1 of 24 milion * 5 milion lizards mutated in what we hoped (that shade of green) in this period. So we would calculate the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation (from a normal lizard): the probability is 1 / (24 milion * 5 million) = 1/120’000’000’000’000, which is a very, very small probability.
Now, let’s take it backwards. We have the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation, and the number of exemplars, and we need to check how much time it will take that to happen. Here is the probabilty problem: From a simple probability lesson (maybe at school), you might have been taught about the throwing of a die, that the odds that the face with the number X (whichever number is X) will result when you throw the die is calculated this way: the number of favorable cases / the number of possible cases, and, whichever number you choose (between 1 and 6, of course), considering that you choose only one number, the possibilty that that number will result when you throw the die is 1/6 (clear enough? 1 number you wish, 6 different number are of all). However, pick a die, choose a number, and throw the die 6 times: It is possible that that number did not result when you threw the die in any of the 6 cases, although the possibility was 1/6. That is because it is almost impossible that when you throw the die 6 times, every time to result a different number than all before. So you may get the numbers 3, 6, 5, 2, 5, 3. You throw the die again, and maybe you will get 2, 6, 4, 5, 4, 3. And yet, “1” did not appear. When will it appear? Answer: impossible to know. Now consider the probability 1/120’000’000’000’000. If it was something that would generate random numbers in the range [1, 120’000’000’000’000], very many numbers will repeat in every row of 120’000’000’000’000 so there would be either impossible or almost impossible that a certain number will EVER result. So, this means that if the first animal that existed was of that species of brown lizard, that lives in grass/vegetation, until now it may have happened that none of this kind has EVER been hatched, and maybe, that it will never be hatched. This is what “probability” is: chance, not rule.
Yet, let’s say one has actually been created: it’s now in an egg. What is the probability that it would not be eaten by another creature that eats eggs, or that its mother does not die, so that it would be able to take care of it; or when it gets out of the egg, what is the possibility that it will get out of the grass and be spotted by a natural enemy and eaten? Or maybe, there is an earthquake that kills it, or maybe a rock falls on it, or maybe it does not find food. Or even, maybe it also has a “harmful” mutation that makes it die quickly. Also, if it reaches maturity, it may be killed, not necessary very hard, even though it has green sking: it may get out of the grass/vegetation, it may not find food, it may be killed by a bigger animal that accidentaly stepped on it, a natural disaster, a rain, a drought, a change of temperature in the region, or who knows what! And if it yet survives until it mates, maybe none of his descendants survive until they themselves mate, or maybe none is hatched with that mutation, or, if one is hatched, there is a great probability that it will die without having such descendants itself. So, do you understand what “random chance” evolution (with no god’s, not even Gaia’s intervention) means? I said “The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive, and those with less, would dissappear.”, but it seems that “chance” means more than anything.
Now consider what you see in reality: there are way too many developped creatures with many astonishing abilities, very many complex creatures and very complex organs (consider the human eye which is very complex, and its possiblity to get here by random chance – and yes, consider the great flaws it would have had if one not-yet-human would have had partially evolved eyes that did not allow him to see or, even too see very poorly) living in a perfect environment(that supports life, sustains it, etc.), sustained by very many physical & chemical laws. By the way, if light had not existed, then no life could have existed, or even if the laws by which atoms can form molecules did not exist, or even those that allows them to be stable enough, nothing would have been. Yet there are too many (if not all) laws that ‘work’ one with another, creating an environment that could have not existed otherwise (i.e. could have not existed if at least one missed or was destructive). I think there are way too many things that are “just the way it was needed” so that everything around could exist.
So, there are some explanations for this, as we might have imagined:
- One I know is the theory by which there are million of parallel universes/worlds, that all or most are chaos (as random chance would create it), and by random chance, considering the millions of worlds that exist, or even more, our world is the only (or one of the only) that has the “just the way it was needed” laws and things (energies, matter, etc.). However, there are some problems with this theory: 1. We cannot prove there is any other parallel world than ours, and maybe the theory itself has been born from fantasy, or religion: that there are gods in another kind of world, there is a heaven and, or a hell, etc. (nothing scientifically). 2. There is neither an explanation as why would it be other worlds, nor how many - if there would be any (leaving it a pure idea/imagination). 3. By the problem of the probabilities, even if there would be an infinite number of worlds, it is possible that none would ‘function’.
- Other is the belief in a kind of Gaia. I had a teacher that he called himself an atheist and believed that God is a kind of “great mathematician”, but only that, because he couldn’t explain how everything could have been created and evolved by pure random chance to what is today, and found it unreasonable, and believed that Einstein had the same idea about what “God” is. He did not believe that God can, by any means ‘contact’/comunicate wih a human being (as it is told about Moses, etc.), perform miracles, etc. but it is a kind of ‘being’ without reason/thinking, limited to just “great mathematician”, who could have only created the universe, and, with some mistakes/lacks (mutations that made creatures not survive, etc.) has brought it here. He believed that, outside of creation, He is totally absent and unaware. Although this is a more “Gaia” than “no god” theory, I think it’s more reasonable than real atheism(“no god”) theory. Yet, I don’t agree with it either, and it seems that neither do you: You said
G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe
, so if God created everything, he should be superior to everything. Also, my logic tells me that if there is something which we call “God” that is a “great mathematician”, able to create the entire universe, he must not only have a great memory to know what he did so far, so that He would continue doing/creating other things, which implies He would be conscious and think. And if He was a great mathematician, He needed reason/logic (I can’t imagine an illogical mathematician, because mathematics require logic), and if He could create everything, He would be, what we call, “Almighty”. Psalm 94.9-10 (KJV translation version) says “9.He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
10.He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” which is about the same and seems logical to me.
- Other is that evolved aliens created everything, or almost everything. But this theory is flawed, because you need only ask yourself “but how did the aliens appear?” to start all over again.
- If you have other theory, tell me, and I’ll think about it and tell you.
I’ve already stated which of them seems more reasonable to me. But, let’s get further with the explanations...
So far we’ve thought about things related to chemistry, biology, cosmos, etc. Now let’s take something more about “life” - that which we live.
There is a kind of force that binds a man into the way he is, the things he does, and the thing he feels. That is, if a man is one day stealing, next time it would be easier for him to steal than it was first time, and even the wish to steal is greater. So if one leaves himself ‘deceived’ by something bad/evil that he is attracted to (like stealing, selfishness, treachery, filthiness, etc.), that bad/evil thing will grow in strength in time as he is is doing it, and the man will become more and more vulnerable to it (the man will feel more attracted to it and more ease to do it), and he may get to a point where he cannot oppose it anymore (and do it every time he feels/can/the thought comes). If you have noticed, ‘bad’ people do not become ‘bad’ over night, when the previous day they were righteouss. The same is with decisions, we draw lines as “oh, I will only do that, nothing more”, “I will not exaggerate into X”, etc. but we always break the lines. Yet as we break a line, the desire grows, even if we draw a line a bit further. Maybe the only thing that gives us the strength to “break free” is if to suffer a lot of that bad/evil thing we did (consequences), which may not be enough sometimes. By the theory of evolution that we are taught, I think that this should never happen, but we should at least not be affected by how much we do them, but maybe we should even become stronger. Is there a scientifical explanation for this, or does the theory of evolution support it? Also, why is it easier to do evil than to do good, have you ever thought about that? The same, is there a scientifical explanation, or does the theory of evolution support it? Yet they are mental laws that did not exist in the universe before man existed (or, how can exist a law so that something, which does not exist and may never exist, would work in a certain way? Because the universe did not know we were supposed to be born).
About the relationship between man and woman:
Somehow it seems that we are ‘made’ “one man for one woman” to form something we call “marriage”. How that? Well, people fall in love, and when a man falls in love with a woman (or vice versa), he wishes to be with her “forever”, only with her, and her only with him, and also a “jealousy” is being born: we cannot be altruist here in the meaning “oh, go and have fun by sleeping with that other guy if you like, I love you, so I want you to be happy!”. People are able to kill for jealousy (i.e. if the other has cheated, has divorced and married another), kill themselves, loose their minds, etc., so “jealousy” is clearly not a breed of “selfishness” (and many times even the past matters for jealousy). Also, the human child reaches maturity (when he can handle life himself, alone) in a very long time compared to other creatures and he needs both parents for his proper development (considering both parents are mentally healthy, etc. of course) which supports the idea of “family”, as well as sex transmitted diseases do (which somehow happens even after the condons have been invented, and might have not happend if people did not fornicate like cats), and also there are many mental things that take place when a man sleeps with a woman (for both), which somehow is healthy if the aim of the man and the woman that sleep one with another is serious and responsible (like, in marriage & family), and somehow unhealthy if the aim is just “having fun” (i.e. a woman who has had slept 100 men, cannot love and be dedicated to a man with the same heart one which had none does, and most surely she cannot be satisfied with only one man, because she is used to many - the same it works for men).
And I don’t think these can be explained by either that which we call “science” or by the theory of evolution. In other words, I think life is too complex and has too many rules and laws (among which, the psychic ones, as how we think, how we feel) that cannot be explained by a chaotic random chance. Here, I think it is also included the sense of guilt: while we feel guilty for things we “think” they are bad, we clearly feel a strong feeling of guilt if we kill somebody, even though everybody says it is not our fault. Or if we do a great evil to somebody (even if we do not support consequences), it’s not at all the same with the feeling of guilt when we just said something bad, or made a mistake that upseted everybody. I think conscience is not something ‘educated’ by the society. Moreover, I think we could not have formed a society if we did not already have a conscience (to feel guilty, to ‘feel’ what is good and what is evil): even now, it is too hard for people to deprive themselves of the things they may have, so that others would feel good (so they steal, rob, cheat, etc.), so what would have happened if those in the past didn’t even feel any kind of guilt and killing a man would have been the same as smashing a bug? Also, interesting question: why does guilt exist? Yet we know it’s very helpful to us.
By the way, something that seems funny to me, yet seems a good question too: If we are created by random chance, how that we are all symmetrical? I don’t speak about mutants, but about normal creatures: the human being, the spider, the camel, the horse, and very many others. What were the odds for that if all was pure chance?
If it is to decide between reason and evidence, I think evidence is always doubtful, while reason is more trustful.
I don’t think the existence of the universe, all that exists, can have any explanation as why they exist, as they are, if a conscious creator did not exist. But if you have other explanation as why they exist, something which I didn’t think about, maybe you tell me. Until then, if you like to hear “evidence”, then the evidence that God exists is that all exists, the way they are. And creatures are also beautiful – if you think how they would have looked if none was symmetrical : )).
And maybe that's a more important thing, to have a reason as why to believes in God - except that, "I was told that", "This is what we believe", so that you would not feel as you pray to a rock.
And about the theory of evolution of species (as it is taught): I don’t think it has any scientific root. It is a great desire of people to feel superior to others and special, and that feeling of superiority is felt more as, “just because he is” one is superior to others. People use to see their parents (especially in the period of puberty) as old-fashioned, that cannot understand many things (which somehow the young ones do), that are left behind in their foolish past where people believed “foolish things”, not like the modern truths, we imagine people of the middle-age were all being retards (and some movies also helped in this way) “by their nature”, while there were many stupid people because of lack of education (like, they weren’t taught correct things, but were indoctrinated, etc.) and you may still get to see people today that you would think about them, that even apes are smarter than them(and I don’t speak about black people), and that’s because stupidity has no limits. And when we see in the early times great and smart things what people did in ages before, we don’t deny our logic, but we invent aliens that built them and taught people, and even mutated them to “human beings”, while we, in our “great wisdom” are not able to do the things that they did with the poor materials and technology and knowledge that they received. But we are still proud that we are smarter than everyone before, because “this is our nature”. And we don’t stop here either, we like the idea that we are smarter than most people of today, too. Many atheists feel superior to other people because they reached to the top of evolution process, while people that “still believe there is a god/there are gods” did not “evolve” enough to realize there is none, when many don’t even judge this seriously, because “it is already a foolish thing”. And in all religions that are people that feel that there are so smart that they realized their religion is “the true one”, not like the others, which are that fool, that they can’t even realize that! This is what I think, the theory of evolution got its roots from, the desire to feel superior, desire/feeling which everyone has.
i would appreciate if you would not give examples using islam.by using this fake religion of criminally insane people you destroy your wonderfull arguments and ruining your thesis.
Despite you hate to hear about islam and muslims, there is nothing bad talking about them. Actually, there is a good point in doing so: for any man, it is very hard to see that their thinking is wrong, or their deeds are wrong (or how seriously bad they are), but no matter how they are, they consider themselves right and good, so it’s pretty hard to tell them sometimes that they do wrong or that they think in an odd manner. In this case, you need an example of someone who does/thinks that, that both of you consider what that one does/thinks is bad (i.e. a muslim), or something that both of you consider to be wrong (i.e. Islam) and point out that bad example. It is easy to make an association, so that the ‘target’ gets to understand that that which he knows it’s stupid/bad – as he understands from that bad example – is the thing himself believes/does, it has a great effect. For instance, if you had some “great idea”, something that seemed to you very smart, astonishing, etc. and I’d find the same thing written in the qur’an or the hadiths, you would change your mind suddenly. So, as long as islam and muslims serve an example, I will use them.
The same ‘technique’ (someone else that is a bad example) was used by the prophet Nathan when David has slept with that woman and then killed her husband. (2 Samuel 12.1-14).
i am honoring you as very intellegent ands clever person (are you a doctor at theology or physics?)
1. My advice: do not honour/glorify people, nor receive honor/glory from people, but talk as from man to man, with the needed respect, nothing more, nothing less, no matter the age, no matter how smart or stupid, no matter how much or little he studied (school, university degrees, etc.). Do not honour/glorify people because this makes him conceit (feel superior to other people, etc.) and do not accept yourself to be honoured/glorified, because it makes you feel conceit (which is a kind of blind feeling of superiority).
2. It is a common belief that if one reaches finishes a high university degree is very smart, while one who didn’t do that is seen as a fool that hasn’t got even the right to say what he believes, because he is a fool, and he knows nothing or “only foolishness”. Despite the fact that you hate hearing about muslims and Islam, there are even muslims who reach high university degrees (even in countries as UK, as compared to muslim countries), about which it’s said that “they received high education”, they still believe the qur’an, hadiths and all those foolish miracles, and all that goes with it. This is because the “education” was received from home and from imams, while “professional knowledge” has been receieved from university. There is also another problem you should be aware of: In schools, universities, etc. – as in many other places – you are told the story, and asked to believe it. They do not ask you to think it, as much as they ask you to believe it. Because, if you think it, you have to get to the same conclusions as your teacher has, and that school has. The same with theology, psychology, philosophy that is taught in schools: if some things are wrong in the courses, moreover if this is the way of thinking of the entire university/faculty, they will most surely not accept that they are wrong, even if you are right, but will seek a method to silence you (because they should be the smart ones, and you the one who doesn’t know, not inverse). And if you don’t write in the courses what they taught, you should not expect the best mark. I hope you understand that the teachings you receieved in school (university, whatever the degree) does not mean everything.
And, no, I haven’t study any theology at any school, and I do not understand how physics could have been necessary to give a good reply to that post. I could have not reached the doctor degree because I am younger than that. Many things I know are because of what I’ve thought of (meditate), and talked with other people (which put me into the situation to think about many things and find answers, which is, yet meditation).
I hope my answers are good enough this time as well. Now I'll go to sleep, I'm very tired.
And, sory for the length of the text (I somehow get to always write much, while I never like to read much, I don't know how it happens : ))).
